Petition to Modify an Exemption of a Previously Approved Antitheft Device; General Motors Corporation, 17614-17616 [E7-6525]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
17614
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices
not detailed in this document, the
petitioner made a comprehensive
showing of its good faith efforts to
comply with the requirements of S14.2
of FMVSS No. 208 and S7 of FMVSS
No. 108 and detailed engineering and
financial information demonstrating
that failure to obtain the exemption
would cause substantial economic
hardship. Specifically, the petitioner
provided the following:
1. Chronological analysis of
Koenigsegg’s efforts to comply, showing
the relationship to the rulemaking
history of the advanced air bag
requirements.
2. Itemized costs of each component
that would have to be modified in order
to achieve compliance.
3. Discussion of alternative means of
compliance and reasons for rejecting
these alternatives.
4. A detailed OEM price-volume
quotation from an advanced air bag
supplier, including detailed costs for the
necessary components for each stage of
the development program.
5. Explanations as to why components
from newer, compliant vehicle lines
could not be borrowed.
6. Corporate income statements and
balance sheets for the period from 2002–
2005, and projected income statements
for the period from 2006–2009
(analyzing alternative scenarios in
which the petition is granted and
denied).
We believe that this exemption will
have negligible impact on motor vehicle
safety because of the limited number of
vehicles affected (approximately 85 to
be imported for the duration of the
requested three-year exemption).
Furthermore, as discussed in previous
decisions on temporary exemption
applications, the agency believes that
the public interest is served by affording
consumers a wider variety of motor
vehicle choices.
We also note that the CCX features
several advanced ‘‘active’’ safety
features. These features are listed in the
petitioner’s application.13 While the
availability of these features is not
critical to our decision, it is a factor in
considering whether the exemption is in
the public interest.
We note that, as explained below,
prospective purchasers will be notified
that the vehicle is exempted from the
specified advanced air bag requirements
of Standard No. 208 and the headlamp
requirements of Standard No. 108.
Under § 555.9(b), a manufacturer of an
exempted passenger car must affix
securely to the windshield or side
window of each exempted vehicle a
13 See
page 16 of Koenigsegg’s petition.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
label containing a statement that the
vehicle conforms to all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards
in effect on the date of manufacture
‘‘except for Standard Nos. [listing the
standards by number and title for which
an exemption has been granted]
exempted pursuant to NHTSA
Exemption No. ____.’’ This label notifies
prospective purchasers about the
exemption and its subject. Under
§ 555.9(c), this information must also be
included on the vehicle’s certification
label.
We note that the text of § 555.9 does
not expressly indicate how the required
statement on the two labels should read
in situations where an exemption covers
part but not all of a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard. Specifically in
the case of FMVSS No. 208, we believe
that a statement that the vehicle has
been exempted from Standard No. 208
generally, without an indication that the
exemption is limited to the specified
advanced air bag provisions, could be
misleading. A consumer might
incorrectly believe that the vehicle has
been exempted from all of Standard No.
208’s requirements. Moreover, we
believe that the addition of a reference
to such provisions by number without
an indication of its subject matter would
be of little use to consumers, since they
would not know the subject of those
specific provisions. For these reasons,
we believe the two labels should read in
relevant part, ‘‘except for S14.5.2, S15,
S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (Advanced
Air Bag Requirements) of Standard No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection,
exempted pursuant to * * *’’. We note
that the phrase ‘‘Advanced Air Bag
Requirements’’ is an abbreviated form of
the title of S14 of Standard No. 208.
Similarly, regarding the temporary
exemption for the CCX’s headlamps, we
believe that the two labels should read
in relevant part, ‘‘except for S7 of
Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment,
exempted pursuant to * * *.’’ We
believe it is reasonable to interpret
§ 555.9 as requiring this language.
In sum, the agency concludes that
Koenigsegg has demonstrated good faith
effort to bring the CCX into compliance
with the advanced air bag requirements
of FMVSS No. 208 and the headlamp
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and has
also demonstrated the requisite
financial hardship. Further, we find
these exemptions to be in the public
interest.
In consideration of the foregoing, we
conclude that compliance with the
advanced air bag requirements of
FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, and the headlamp
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirements of FMVSS No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment, would cause
substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried in good faith
to comply with the standard. We further
conclude that granting of an exemption
from these provisions would be in the
public interest and consistent with the
objectives of traffic safety.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
30113(b)(3)(B)(i), the Koenigsegg CCX is
granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption
No. EX 06–10, from S14.5.2, S15, S17,
S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 49 CFR
571.208 and from S7 of 49 CFR 571.108.
The exemption is effective immediately
and continues in effect through
December 31, 2009.
Issued on: March 29, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7–6549 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition to Modify an Exemption of a
Previously Approved Antitheft Device;
General Motors Corporation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of a petition to modify an
exemption from the Parts Marking
Requirements of a previously approved
antitheft device.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On August 15, 1989, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) granted in part
General Motors Corporation’s (GM)
petition for an exemption in accordance
with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543,
Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard for the Chevrolet Camaro
vehicle line. The exemption was granted
because the agency determined that the
antitheft device proposed to be placed
on the line as standard equipment was
likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard. On November 10, 2006, GM
petitioned the agency to amend the
exemption previously granted for the
Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. NHTSA
is granting in full GM’s petition to
modify the exemption because it has
determined that the modified antitheft
device to be placed on the Chevrolet
Camaro line as standard equipment will
also likely be as effective in reducing
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices
and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with model
year (MY) 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Mazyck, Office of International
Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Mazyck’s phone number is (202) 366–
0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August
15, 1989, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a notice granting in
part a petition from GM for an
exemption from the parts marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR 541) for the 1990
Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. The
Chevrolet Camaro was equipped with
the PASS–Key antitheft device (See 54
FR 33655). For MY 1993, the device was
changed to the PASS–Key II device. GM
did not submit a petition for
modification at that time because, in a
February 7, 1992, letter to GM, the
agency determined that changes in the
‘‘PASS–Key II’’ constituted a de minimis
change in the PASS-Key device. GM
suspended production of the Chevrolet
Camaro vehicle line at the end of the
2003 MY.
In a petition dated November 10,
2006, GM requested a modification of
the previously granted exemption for
the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. GM
stated that ‘‘(F) or the 2010 Model Year,
General Motors will be reinstating
production of the Chevrolet Camaro and
upgrading the standard theft deterrent
system.’’ GM’s November 10, 2006,
submission is a complete petition, as
required by 49 CFR Part 543.9(d), in that
it meets the general requirements
contained in 49 CFR Part 543.5 and the
specific content requirements of 49 CFR
Part 543.6. GM’s petition provides a
detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the
components of the antitheft device
proposed for installation beginning with
the 2010 model year.
The 1990 antitheft device (PASS–Key)
installed on the Chevrolet Camaro was
a passively activated, transponderbased, electronic immobilizer system.
The PASS–Key system used a standard
ignition key to rotate a specially coded
ignition switch. Before the vehicle could
be operated, the electrical resistance of
a pellet embedded in the shank of the
key had to be sensed by elements in the
ignition lock cylinder and recognized by
the decoder. If a key with the incorrect
electrical resistance was inserted, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
PASS–Key decoder module would shut
down, disabling the start and fuel
delivery systems.
The 1993 antitheft device (PASS–Key
II) was a modification of the PASS–Key
device. GM stated that the key
resistance read by discrete electrical
components in the PASS–Key circuitry
was replaced in the PASS–Key II device
with the key resistance being
determined by a microprocessor.
Additionally, a security indicator would
illuminate continuously directing the
operator to have the vehicle serviced if
‘‘fail enabled’’ conditions (i.e., vehicle
does not start with the proper key
because of a dirty or contaminated
resistor pellet) arose. If a fault was
detected, future ignition cycles would
not be allowed regardless of key
authorization.
In its second modification, GM stated
that it proposes to install its Chevrolet
Camaro vehicle line with its PASS–Key
III+ antitheft device for MY 2010. The
PASS–Key III+ is also a transponder
based, electronic immobilizer system. It
is designed to be active at all times
without direct intervention by the
vehicle operator. The antitheft device is
fully armed immediately after the
ignition has been turned off and the key
removed. The device will continue to
provide protection against unauthorized
use (i.e., starting and engine fueling),
but will not provide any visible or
audible indication of unauthorized
vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights or
horn alarm).
Components of the modified antitheft
device include an electronically-coded
ignition key, a PASS–Key III+ controller
module and an engine control module.
Unlike the ignition key used with the
PASS–Key and PASS–Key II devices,
the PASS–Key III+ ignition key contains
electronics embedded within the head
of the key. These electronics receive
energy and data from the control
module. Upon receipt of the data, the
key will calculate a response to the data
using secret information and an internal
encryption algorithm, and transmit the
response back to the vehicle. The
controller module translates the radio
frequency signal received from the key
into a digital signal and compares the
received response to an internally
calculated value. If the values match,
the key is recognized as valid and the
vehicle can be operated.
The PASS–Key III+ device has the
potential for over four billion unique
electrical key codes which varies with
every ignition cycle, while the PASS–
Key and PASS–Key II has a possibility
of 15 code combinations that never
varies at each ignition cycle. In the
PASS–Key III+, each key is uniquely
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17615
coded and the vehicle can be
programmed to operate with up to ten
different codes, compared to the PASS–
Key and PASS–Key II devices that only
allow a vehicle to recognize a single
unique code.
GM indicated that the theft rates, as
reported by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s National Crime
Information Center (NCIC), are lower for
GM models equipped with the ‘‘PASS–
Key’’-like systems which have
exemptions from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, than
the theft rates for earlier, similarlyconstructed models which were partsmarked. Based on the performance of
the PASS–Key, PASS–Key II, and
PASS–Key III systems on other GM
models, and the advanced technology
utilized by the modification, GM
believes that the MY 2010 antitheft
device will be more effective in
deterring theft than the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
GM stated that the theft rates for the
2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS and the MY
2004 Cadillac SRX currently installed
with the PASS-Key III+ antitheft device
exhibit theft rates that are lower than
the median theft rate (3.5826)
established by the agency. The Cadillac
CTS introduced as a MY 2003 vehicle
line has been equipped with the PASSKey III+ device since the start of
production. The theft rates for the MY
2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS is 1.0108
and 0.7681 respectively. Similarly, the
Cadillac SRX introduced as a MY 2004
vehicle has been equipped with the
PASS-Key III+ device since production.
The theft rate for MY 2004 Cadillac SRX
is 0.7789. GM stated that the theft rates
experienced by these lines with
installation of the PASS-Key III+ device
demonstrate the effectiveness of the
device. The agency agrees that the
device is substantially similar to devices
for which the agency has previously
approved exemptions.
GM’s proposed device, as well as
other comparable devices that have
received full exemptions from the partsmarking requirements, lack an audible
or visible alarm. Therefore, these
devices cannot perform one of the
functions listed in 49 CFR Part
543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to
unauthorized attempts to enter or move
the vehicle. Based on comparison of the
reduction in the theft rates of GM
vehicles using a passive theft deterrent
device with an audible/visible alarm
system to the reduction in theft rates for
GM vehicle models equipped with a
passive antitheft device without an
alarm, GM finds that the lack of an
alarm or attention attracting device does
not compromise the theft deterrent
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
17616
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices
performance of a system such as PASSKey III+. In past petitions, the agency
has concluded that the lack of a visual
or audio alarm has not prevented these
antitheft devices from being effective
protection against theft.
On the basis of this comparison, GM
believes that the antitheft device (PASSKey III+) for model years 2010 and later
will provide essentially the same
functions and features as found on its
MY 1990–2002 PASS-Key device and
therefore, its modified device will
provide at least the same level of theft
prevention as parts-marking. GM
believes that the antitheft device
proposed for installation on its MY 2010
Chevrolet Camaro is likely to be as
effective in reducing thefts as
compliance with the parts marking
requirements of Part 541.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of 543.6, GM provided
information on the reliability and
durability of the proposed device. To
ensure reliability and durability of the
device, GM conducted tests based on its
own specified standards. GM provided
a detailed list of the tests conducted and
believes that the device is reliable and
durable since it complied with the
specified requirements for each test. GM
also stated that since the authorization
code is not handled or contacted by the
vehicle operator, the reliability of the
PASS-Key III+ is significantly improved
over the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II
devices. This reliability allows the
system to return to the ‘‘Go/No Go’’
based system, eliminating the ‘‘fail
enabled’’ mode of operation.
The agency has evaluated GM’s MY
2010 petition to modify the exemption
for the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
49 CFR Part 541, and has decided to
grant it. It has determined that the
PASS-Key III+ system is likely to be as
effective as parts-marking in preventing
and deterring theft of these vehicles,
and therefore qualifies for an exemption
under 49 CFR Part 543. The agency
believes that the proposed device will
continue to provide four of the five
types of performance listed in
§ 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of
the device by unauthorized persons;
preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
If GM decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a
decision is made, the line must be fully
marked according to the requirements
under 49 CFR Parts 541.5 and 541.6
(marking of major component parts and
replacement parts).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any
changes, the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should
consult the agency before preparing and
submitting a petition to modify.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7–6525 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; General Motors
Corporation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document grants in full
the petition of General Motors
Corporation (GM) for an exemption in
accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR
Part 543, Exemption from the Theft
Prevention Standard, for the Saturn
Aura vehicle line beginning with model
year (MY) 2008. This petition is granted
because the agency has determined that
the antitheft device to be placed on the
line as standard equipment is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with model
year (MY) 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Rosalind Proctor, Office of International
Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Proctor’s phone number is (202) 366–
0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated October 6, 2006, GM
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)
for the Saturn Aura vehicle line
beginning with MY 2008. The petition
requested an exemption from partsmarking pursuant to 49 CFR 543,
Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the
installation of an antitheft device as
standard equipment for the entire
vehicle line.
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may
petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for
one line of its vehicle lines per year. In
its petition, GM provided a detailed
description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components
of the antitheft device for the new
vehicle line. The antitheft device is a
transponder-based, electronic,
immobilizer system. GM will install its
passive antitheft device as standard
equipment on its Saturn Aura vehicle
line beginning with MY 2008. GM stated
that the device will provide protection
against unauthorized use (i.e., starting
and engine fueling), but will not provide
any visible or audible indication of
unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing
lights or horn alarm). GM’s submission
is considered a complete petition as
required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it
meets the general requirements
contained in § 543.5 and the specific
content requirements of § 543.6.
The antitheft device to be installed on
the MY 2008 Saturn Aura is the PASSKey III+. The PASS-Key III+ device is
designed to be active at all times
without direct intervention by the
vehicle operator. The system is fully
armed immediately after the ignition
has been turned off and the key
removed. The system will provide
protection against unauthorized starting
and fueling of the vehicle engine.
Components of the antitheft device
include an electronically-coded ignition
key, a PASS-Key III+ controller module
and an engine control module. The
ignition key contains electronics
molded into the key head. These
electronics receive energy and data from
the control module. Upon receipt of the
data, the key will calculate a response
to the data using secret information and
an internal encryption algorithm, and
transmit the response back to the
vehicle. The controller module
translates the radio frequency signal
received from the key into a digital
signal and compares the received
response to an internally calculated
value. If the values match, the key is
recognized as valid and the vehicle can
be operated.
GM indicated that the theft rates, as
reported by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s National Crime
Information Center (NCIC), are lower for
GM models equipped with the ‘‘PASSKey’’-like systems which have
exemptions from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, than
the theft rates for earlier, similarlyconstructed models which were partsmarked. Based on the performance of
the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASSKey III systems on other GM models,
and the advanced technology utilized by
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17614-17616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6525]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition to Modify an Exemption of a Previously Approved
Antitheft Device; General Motors Corporation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of a petition to modify an exemption from the Parts
Marking Requirements of a previously approved antitheft device.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 15, 1989, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) granted in part General Motors Corporation's
(GM) petition for an exemption in accordance with Sec. 543.9(c)(2) of
49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard for the
Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. The exemption was granted because the
agency determined that the antitheft device proposed to be placed on
the line as standard equipment was likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. On
November 10, 2006, GM petitioned the agency to amend the exemption
previously granted for the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. NHTSA is
granting in full GM's petition to modify the exemption because it has
determined that the modified antitheft device to be placed on the
Chevrolet Camaro line as standard equipment will also likely be as
effective in reducing
[[Page 17615]]
and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number is
(202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 15, 1989, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a notice granting in part a petition from GM for an
exemption from the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR 541) for the 1990 Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. The
Chevrolet Camaro was equipped with the PASS-Key antitheft device (See
54 FR 33655). For MY 1993, the device was changed to the PASS-Key II
device. GM did not submit a petition for modification at that time
because, in a February 7, 1992, letter to GM, the agency determined
that changes in the ``PASS-Key II'' constituted a de minimis change in
the PASS-Key device. GM suspended production of the Chevrolet Camaro
vehicle line at the end of the 2003 MY.
In a petition dated November 10, 2006, GM requested a modification
of the previously granted exemption for the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle
line. GM stated that ``(F) or the 2010 Model Year, General Motors will
be reinstating production of the Chevrolet Camaro and upgrading the
standard theft deterrent system.'' GM's November 10, 2006, submission
is a complete petition, as required by 49 CFR Part 543.9(d), in that it
meets the general requirements contained in 49 CFR Part 543.5 and the
specific content requirements of 49 CFR Part 543.6. GM's petition
provides a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device proposed for
installation beginning with the 2010 model year.
The 1990 antitheft device (PASS-Key) installed on the Chevrolet
Camaro was a passively activated, transponder-based, electronic
immobilizer system. The PASS-Key system used a standard ignition key to
rotate a specially coded ignition switch. Before the vehicle could be
operated, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank
of the key had to be sensed by elements in the ignition lock cylinder
and recognized by the decoder. If a key with the incorrect electrical
resistance was inserted, the PASS-Key decoder module would shut down,
disabling the start and fuel delivery systems.
The 1993 antitheft device (PASS-Key II) was a modification of the
PASS-Key device. GM stated that the key resistance read by discrete
electrical components in the PASS-Key circuitry was replaced in the
PASS-Key II device with the key resistance being determined by a
microprocessor. Additionally, a security indicator would illuminate
continuously directing the operator to have the vehicle serviced if
``fail enabled'' conditions (i.e., vehicle does not start with the
proper key because of a dirty or contaminated resistor pellet) arose.
If a fault was detected, future ignition cycles would not be allowed
regardless of key authorization.
In its second modification, GM stated that it proposes to install
its Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line with its PASS-Key III+ antitheft
device for MY 2010. The PASS-Key III+ is also a transponder based,
electronic immobilizer system. It is designed to be active at all times
without direct intervention by the vehicle operator. The antitheft
device is fully armed immediately after the ignition has been turned
off and the key removed. The device will continue to provide protection
against unauthorized use (i.e., starting and engine fueling), but will
not provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle
entry (i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm).
Components of the modified antitheft device include an
electronically-coded ignition key, a PASS-Key III+ controller module
and an engine control module. Unlike the ignition key used with the
PASS-Key and PASS-Key II devices, the PASS-Key III+ ignition key
contains electronics embedded within the head of the key. These
electronics receive energy and data from the control module. Upon
receipt of the data, the key will calculate a response to the data
using secret information and an internal encryption algorithm, and
transmit the response back to the vehicle. The controller module
translates the radio frequency signal received from the key into a
digital signal and compares the received response to an internally
calculated value. If the values match, the key is recognized as valid
and the vehicle can be operated.
The PASS-Key III+ device has the potential for over four billion
unique electrical key codes which varies with every ignition cycle,
while the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II has a possibility of 15 code
combinations that never varies at each ignition cycle. In the PASS-Key
III+, each key is uniquely coded and the vehicle can be programmed to
operate with up to ten different codes, compared to the PASS-Key and
PASS-Key II devices that only allow a vehicle to recognize a single
unique code.
GM indicated that the theft rates, as reported by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), are
lower for GM models equipped with the ``PASS-Key''-like systems which
have exemptions from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541,
than the theft rates for earlier, similarly-constructed models which
were parts-marked. Based on the performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key
II, and PASS-Key III systems on other GM models, and the advanced
technology utilized by the modification, GM believes that the MY 2010
antitheft device will be more effective in deterring theft than the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
GM stated that the theft rates for the 2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS
and the MY 2004 Cadillac SRX currently installed with the PASS-Key III+
antitheft device exhibit theft rates that are lower than the median
theft rate (3.5826) established by the agency. The Cadillac CTS
introduced as a MY 2003 vehicle line has been equipped with the PASS-
Key III+ device since the start of production. The theft rates for the
MY 2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS is 1.0108 and 0.7681 respectively.
Similarly, the Cadillac SRX introduced as a MY 2004 vehicle has been
equipped with the PASS-Key III+ device since production. The theft rate
for MY 2004 Cadillac SRX is 0.7789. GM stated that the theft rates
experienced by these lines with installation of the PASS-Key III+
device demonstrate the effectiveness of the device. The agency agrees
that the device is substantially similar to devices for which the
agency has previously approved exemptions.
GM's proposed device, as well as other comparable devices that have
received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements, lack an
audible or visible alarm. Therefore, these devices cannot perform one
of the functions listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3), that is, to call
attention to unauthorized attempts to enter or move the vehicle. Based
on comparison of the reduction in the theft rates of GM vehicles using
a passive theft deterrent device with an audible/visible alarm system
to the reduction in theft rates for GM vehicle models equipped with a
passive antitheft device without an alarm, GM finds that the lack of an
alarm or attention attracting device does not compromise the theft
deterrent
[[Page 17616]]
performance of a system such as PASS-Key III+. In past petitions, the
agency has concluded that the lack of a visual or audio alarm has not
prevented these antitheft devices from being effective protection
against theft.
On the basis of this comparison, GM believes that the antitheft
device (PASS-Key III+) for model years 2010 and later will provide
essentially the same functions and features as found on its MY 1990-
2002 PASS-Key device and therefore, its modified device will provide at
least the same level of theft prevention as parts-marking. GM believes
that the antitheft device proposed for installation on its MY 2010
Chevrolet Camaro is likely to be as effective in reducing thefts as
compliance with the parts marking requirements of Part 541.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, GM
provided information on the reliability and durability of the proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, GM
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided a
detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is
reliable and durable since it complied with the specified requirements
for each test. GM also stated that since the authorization code is not
handled or contacted by the vehicle operator, the reliability of the
PASS-Key III+ is significantly improved over the PASS-Key and PASS-Key
II devices. This reliability allows the system to return to the ``Go/No
Go'' based system, eliminating the ``fail enabled'' mode of operation.
The agency has evaluated GM's MY 2010 petition to modify the
exemption for the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, and has decided to grant it. It has
determined that the PASS-Key III+ system is likely to be as effective
as parts-marking in preventing and deterring theft of these vehicles,
and therefore qualifies for an exemption under 49 CFR Part 543. The
agency believes that the proposed device will continue to provide four
of the five types of performance listed in Sec. 543.6(a)(3): Promoting
activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
If GM decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any
changes, the effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it
should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to
modify.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7-6525 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
